Don’t bank on a pitch for federal funding of Olympic training

As the
U.S. trailed China in the gold medal chase early in the Beijing Games, it was
inevitable that some media member would dust off a geopolitical story line and
try to stir up a sports race between America and its newest archrival. On Aug.
13, just six days into the Games, the Financial Times did just that when it reported that the U.S. Olympic Committee’s
response to China’s strong showing was to explore federal funding to boost
America’s national Olympic sports programs.

USOC spokesman Darryl Seibel was quoted
calling the Beijing Games “the most competitive ever” and then citing certain
inequities in the global playing field, namely that the USOC is “one of the few
Olympic committees in the world that doesn’t get funding from government” and
is “not even in the top five” of national Olympic committees in terms of
overall financial support.

As for the prospects of
federal funding for the U.S. Olympic program, Seibel said “That is something we
are going to have to assess. As all of this becomes more competitive, it is
something we are heading towards.”

The U.S. wants its athletes to win, but
don’t look for federal tax dollars
to support the cause.

That was all FT reporter Roger Blitz needed to write the following: “In what has
the potential to become a sporting version of the cold war, China has poured
millions into its state sports system to produce medal winners at the Beijing
Games, and the US is positioning itself to retaliate.”

Despite
that journalistic leap, it was unclear how serious the USOC actually was about
pursuing government funding. Surely, the USOC had to realize how a plea for
public funds would play politically.

Yes, Americans tuned in
to the Beijing Games in record numbers. Yes, they care very deeply about
whether our athletes win. Yes, they expect to be the best in the world. But
paying for it with tax dollars? That’s another story. With jobs heading
overseas, crumbling infrastructure, a nationwide housing crisis, an
ever-present terror threat — we’ve all seen the presidential campaign ads — it
seemed far-fetched for the USOC to ask taxpayers to chip in so we can beat the
Chinese in London in 2012.

Reached later during the
Games, Seibel confirmed as much. Building on his earlier remarks, Seibel
clarified that if there are thoughts within the USOC of pursuing federal
funding, they were just that: thoughts. Furthermore, there is no timetable for
when those thoughts might develop into something more.

On Watch’s Medal
Stand For NBC’s
Olympic Coverage

GOLDThe Time Difference
NBC programmed the nightly prime-time show like a miniseries,
highlighting the best action from the day and holding our attention with
time-stamped teases for what was coming and when. However they did it, the
Olympics were appointment-viewing once again.

SILVERLess Was More
NBC wisely cut back on the emotionally drenched personal profiles,
keeping them tighter and building them into event coverage. They were less
consistent in the quality of the athlete interviews on-site. We especially
liked Bob Neumeier’s short and to-the-point style at the track,
with questions that let the athletes do the talking. We were less of a fan of Andrea Joyce’s Dr. Phil-style approach at gymnastics, with
statements disguised as questions. After her “What were you thinking?” session
with Joyce, Alicia Sacramone didn’t know whether to cry or call security.

BRONZEFighting To Make Sense
NBC had an excellent team at boxing, particularly Teddy Atlas. The problem was the sport they covered was
impossible to watch because of the completely unfathomable judging and scoring
system. When the announcers have no idea what’s going on, the viewer has no
chance.

TINJournalistic IntegrityBob Costas made no bones about Bela Karolyi’s conflict with his wife
coaching the U.S. gymnasts. But who cares, right? Bela was great TV! And Cris Collinsworth’s on-air date with
Michael Phelps’ mom crossed so many lines, we don’t know where to start. At the
venues, there were plenty of “Is it live or is it Memorex?” moments that made
you wonder if the announcing was genuine, especially at the pool, where Dan Hicks and Rowdy Gaines were particularly
prescient at times about what to watch for. Does anyone other than your
friendly neighborhood media critic care? The ratings say “no.”

While holding out the
possibility it “may well look at whether it makes sense” at some point, Seibel
said a concerted push by the USOC for public funds is “not something on the
table right now.” (He did note that the USOC is working with the federal
government on support for the U.S. Paralympics program, which the USOC also oversees
— a different matter entirely.)

For now, the USOC’s plan
to close the funding gap is to build on its current private sector support, be
as efficient as possible with the resources it has and develop new revenue
streams, such as a possible TV network. Excitement generated by the Beijing
Games should help, as Seibel reports they already have received “several
inquiries” from new corporate partners and a greater level of interest from
private donors.

Frustrating as it may be
to folks in Colorado Springs, those are their best options right now. Whether
sooner or — as seems most likely — much later, the USOC would face a very tough
political sell in defining the true public interest in taxpayer money for the
Olympic program. The public would see clear benefits to the individual
athletes, no doubt, and for NBC and
for the various Olympic sponsors. But beyond some elusive quadrennial boost of
the national psyche, the broader public benefit is harder to fathom.

As for China, we are in a
real battle with them. But winning that competition will mean directing scarce
federal dollars in other directions, like paying down our debt, targeting
research and development in key growth industries, and improving math and
science education. If the USOC were to send lobbyists up to Capitol Hill
seeking money for a national sports program, it better have an answer for why
gymnastics academies, to cite one example, should be included anywhere on that
list.

There may be a better
short-term idea on how to capitalize on renewed Olympic interest post-Beijing.
How about a push for greater federal government support for youth sports,
particularly in our public schools? More and more, communities under intense
budget pressures are cutting physical education and sports in schools or charging
fees that put athletics out of the reach of many families. The USOC could use
an expected Beijing bounce to start a national grassroots effort to boost
school sports so we can get our kids off the couch and into the game. By tying
the effort to the national obesity epidemic, there would also be a children’s
health hook.

Why copy the state-run
model that works better in places where an authoritarian government decides
winners and losers at age six? The USOC could boost its image through a
national campaign to find the next generation of Olympic stars the democratic
way, by giving every kid a chance at success. As Seibel himself acknowledged,
“We have to be true to who we are, to what works for us as a culture and a
society.” That may not be as sexy to some in the media as a global sports arms
race, but it is a reality the USOC seems to accept — for now, at least.